Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> STATE OF CALIFORNIA a . • GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor <br /> CALIFORNIA REr3IONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— <br /> CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 ROUTIER ROAD, SUITE A <br /> SACRAMENTO, CA 95827-3098 <br /> 26 December 1990 <br /> Mr. Harry Galles, Department Head <br /> Environmental Protection Department <br /> University of California <br /> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory <br /> P.O. Box 808 <br /> Livermore, CA 94550 <br /> RESPONSE TO C61WENTS ON TENTATIVE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (NPDES PERMIT) FOR <br /> LAWRENCE LIVERMWE NATIONAL LABORATORY SITE 300 AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF <br /> ENERGY, SAN JOAQUIN AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES <br /> I have reviewed the 25 September 1990 letter containing comments on the tentative <br /> permit for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) ground water <br /> extraction and treatment system at Site 300. As you know, we are awaiting <br /> completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant <br /> Impact (FONSI) before placing the permit on the Board's agenda. According to <br /> your schedule, the EA is expected in mid-December with the FONSI in mid-January. <br /> Therefore, we plan to bring the permit to the Board for consideration at the <br /> 22 February 1991 Board meeting. We also will comment on the EA when it is <br /> available for review. <br /> The following responses to your comments are listed in the same order as your <br /> September letter and a revised tentative permit is attached: <br /> General <br /> 1. The last sentence of Finding 2 has been deleted. <br /> 2. Finding 3 has been changed to describe LLNL' s status on the National <br /> Priority List and the negotiations to be conducted for a Federal <br /> Facilities Agreement (FFA) . <br /> 3. We do not agree that the private water supply wells are not threatened. <br /> Our review of the available information on the supply wells and the <br /> monitoring wells indicates a possible hydraulic connection between <br /> stratigraphic units. Therefore, we believe the supply wells could become <br /> contaminated due to the proximity of the trichloroethylene (TCE) plume to <br /> the supply wells, the uncertainty of whether the clay layer is a complete <br /> aquitard, and the high mobility of TCE through clay in any case. <br /> 4. Finding 5 and Attachment B have been changed to show the correct <br /> extraction well number (W-26R-03) . <br />